Eric C and I love the NPR show Foreign Dispatch--“a collection of some of the best coverage of news and events filed by NPR’s corespondents from around the globe"--but their latest episode trotted out an old cliche that we wish would die: Afghanistan has never been conquered! (I put that in italics, because I feel like that phrase is always spoken or written in exasperation.) This little factoid sums up thousands of years of history in five words, forcing the conclusion that America, like all past conquerors, is doomed to fail, so get out of Afghanistan or die trying. (With an evil doctor "Boo ha ha!" following.)

One tiny, little inconvenient truth stands in the way of this delightful saying: Afghanistan has been conquered. A lot. Many times. Over and over.

Even Sebastian Junger, whom I quoted above, goes on later in War to contradict himself. He writes that the inhabitants of the Korengal were forcibly converted to Islam only 100 years ago. I mean, if a foreign ruler can change an entire valley’s religion just a hundred years ago, surely it isn’t as unconquerable as Junger described?

The argument is, at its core, too simplistic. Afghanistan has only been unified as a country for barely 200 years. Up until then it was the center of empires, part of empires and a well-worn path of conquerors and armies. History is too long and convoluted to make some grand pronouncement that one region has “never been conquered”. A quick trip to wikipedia solves this problem.

Which brings me to my second point, how come no one else has thought, “Hey, this doesn’t sound right. I should check on this”? Why don’t we question our assumptions, quotations and references more frequently?

There are two lessons to be learned. The first is that Afghanistan is not the “graveyard of empires”. The second is that everyone needs to questions simple platitudes, especially on the interwebs.

nine comments

I, in fact, just had someone tell me this phrase again last night at a taco party. Since I don’t like arguing with people in public, I just thought to myself, read the blog tomorrow…

Jon | 15-12-’10 11:21

I was always of the mind that no one cared to conquer the area or run the country if it was taken. If anything it has been a great buffer between civilizations. The Brits certainly didn’t leave the infrastructure they did everywhere else- unless I just haven’t heard about the Great Afghan Railway.

Excellent point, Jon, but just makes the case all the more. The country has nothing, so it isn’t so much like countries are defeated, but that the value in keeping the land is way lower than other places.

Jon | 15-12-’10 11:48

Exactly. I think at one point the Brits simply gave up all the land (after conquering it) because they only cared about running the area’s foreign policy. That being said, most my knowledge of The Great Game comes from Rudyard Kipling…

Interesting article. People look back no further than England and the Soviets and because it serves their purposes to make Afghanistan seem like a cauldron of Empire-dissolving acid.

I will spend some time reading those links.

People also “forget” that the Soviets had a tough time winning the hearts and minds of Afghans when they did stuff like put bombs into teddy bears and dropped those into villages to blow up little kiddies.

Yeah the whole point that Britain has something of value to extract from Africa, India, the Middle East, is an important point. Afghanistan isn’t hospitable or easily conquered, I’m not saying that. But that land has been conquered. I love too that most of the people who say that mention Alexander, then kind of skip to the British ignoring the millinia and a half that passed in the interim.

Stahlke | 15-12-’10 22:49

Eric,

I’m not entirely sure what a taco party is, but I can make a few guesses and they all sound like a fun time. Salud.

Will | 16-12-’10 08:52

LOL, Senor Stahlke.

Matty P | 17-12-’10 21:52

Doesn’t the statement also imply that the United States is an empire? Are we resigning that sentiment to fact as well?

On Violence is a blog on counter-insurgency warfare, military and foreign affairs, art, and violence, written by two brothers--one a veteran and the other a pacifist.

The work of On Violence has appeared in The Washington Post, Stars and Stripes, The Small Wars Journal, The New York Times’ "At War" blog, The Los Angeles Times’ Blowback feature, FP.com and Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog, Infantry Magazine, and Doonesbury’s “The Sandbox”.